Since 1961, the linear trend for solar radiation has risen from about 12 MJ/m2 to about 13.4 MJ/m2, which is some 10%. Meanwhile the mean annual temperature has gone from about 14.2°C to 16°C for the 8 stations.

With all the extra solar energy, and in combination with urban development, it should not be a surprise that we’ve seen a warming.

CO2 hardly the driver

If we had seen the same temperature rise without an increase in solar radiation and urban development, and ignoring oceanic factors, then we might assume a possible “greenhouse” effect. But the charts make it clear that Japan’s warming had very little to do with CO2.

So why would solar radiation be increasing? Obviously less cloud cover, which have nothing to do with CO2, but rather with natural solar and oceanic cycles. And no, CO2 does not drive either one.

Oceans cycles dominate over other regions

In the far north, for example, the sun is much weaker and so probably has a lesser role. So other factors such as natural ocean cycles likely have major impacts on mean annual temperature trends and ice melt. Warm oceanic phases release more moisture into the atmosphere which in turn has profound a warming effect in polar regions, for example at polar outpost Spitzbergen.

Ole Humlum, Danish professor emeritus of physical geography at the University of Oslo, believes that the future forecasts in the recently presented IPCC climate report are “not well founded”, and presents a chart that shows that the AMO is clearly a huge driver:

What about cleaner industry regionally and in or near the locations where the solar instrumentation is stationed? Thus, the readings are higher without saying the Sun is more intense.
I’m not aware of some of the sites indicated, nor where the instruments are.
I do know that the sky is cleaner in many American cities than it was years ago, say 1975 as a guess.

There is one signal that is indeed clearly missing from this analysis – namely the signal from the sun itself. The changes in radiation detected at the earth’s surface are much larger than the changes in TSI detected by satellites. Moreover, the eleven year cycle is clearly missing. This is a strong indication that it is the earth’s atmosphere, rather than the sun itself, that is determining how much radiation gets through. Whether this is by reflection, refraction, scattering, absorption, re-emission or even the infamous “back radiation” is unclear. It is probably a mixture of several.

There is also a further problem. If the changes really do represent 10% of the total radiation reaching the earth’s surface, then, at equilibrium, this would indicate that we should see a change of around seven degrees centigrade! It would seem that the measurements of radiation only consider a narrow range of frequencies rather than the total radiation arriving at the earth’s surface. It is worth noting in this context that the outgoing long wave radiation is substantially larger than the measurements quoted here.

“The changes in radiation detected at the earth’s surface are much larger than the changes in TSI detected by satellites.”

That’s well known, as is the reason for the apparent discrepancy. See here, where Dr. Moerner presents Dr. Easterbrook’s work, in which there is an informative portion on TSI, and why it correlates so well with temperatures on earth.https://youtu.be/G4wov0kc3yg

You really shouldn’t be so critical of others when you overlook important details yourself.

You really shouldn’t be so critical of others when you overlook important details yourself.

“Skeptik” has shown his propensity to believe that TSI variation is the only means by which the Sun can influence climate. We’ve explained this to him before, but he lacks the skepticism to do anything other than keep believing what he always has. His trenchant close-mindedness belies the name he has given himself.

“There is one signal that is indeed clearly missing from this analysis – namely the signal from the sun itself.”

And there for all to see is the error –>> “one signal”! Since when was the sun’s output defined as “one signal”?

Neither TSI nor SSN defines the solar effects. So please Skeptik, go and research all the effects (all the signals) the sun has on this planet. Then come back with better knowledge and perhaps some understanding.

But as people learned already in the first grade, the earth’s surface warms when the sun shines on it, and tends to cool when clouds obstruct the sun.

Pretty sure kids also learn that clouds keep the surface warm in many cases, e.g. when the Sun doesn’t shine or in the cold season.

Since 1961, the linear trend for solar radiation has risen from about 12 MJ/m2 to about 13.4 MJ/m2, which is some 10%. Meanwhile the mean annual temperature has gone from about 14.2°C to 16°C for the 8 stations.

Well, obviously solar radiation and temperature aren’t correlated in a linear fashion. 14.2°C to 16°C is only a 0.63% change in temperature.

Also, a 1.4 MJ/m² difference in the daily solar radiation average would equal a difference of 16.2 W/m² in solar radiation in 58 years. You’d need to subtract the obvious lack of cloud backradiation from this amount to get the real forcing value of this change in cloud cover over Japan.

If we had seen the same temperature rise without an increase in solar radiation and urban development, and ignoring oceanic factors, then we might assume a possible “greenhouse” effect. But the charts make it clear that Japan’s warming had very little to do with CO2.

Nope, we might not “assume” anything from just correlating curves to each other. Without a physical mechanism that is sufficient for one to cause the other, correlations are meaningless. As a thought experiment, imagine there were two variables that increased linearly and you observe a matching linear increase in the temperature. How could you ever decide how much of the temperature increase can be attributed to one or the other variable? You can’t without knowledge about the physical mechanisms involved.

I’ll never get the human desire to try and correlate things in a way that more or less amounts to eyeballing it. While climate skeptics seem to generally use this argument against who they perceive as alarmists, they appear to do this all the time themselves. Kind of ironic.

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy